Let's pass a law

[Ravi]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

We kind of already have that law. We income earners are all required to fund the military. Hence, we have all bought guns.

We aren't forced to use them though, just like you aren't going to be forced to use your health insurance.

 

[Jackson]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

We kind of already have that law. We income earners are all required to fund the military. Hence, we have all bought guns.

We aren't forced to use them though, just like you aren't going to be forced to use your health insurance.

Ravi, that's like saying we have all bought bombs and fighter jets. We can all agree that that there was a better way to handle the rising costs of medical care without raising the premiums of everyone, stifling small businesses, taxing the country more and not securing our borders where most of our uninsured medical costs arise.

 

[midcan5]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

This wins "The Stupid Thread of Month" and came in second for "Retarded thought of the Month." Congrats.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Law

 

[Ravi]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

We kind of already have that law. We income earners are all required to fund the military. Hence, we have all bought guns.

We aren't forced to use them though, just like you aren't going to be forced to use your health insurance.

Ravi, that's like saying we have all bought bombs and fighter jets. We can all agree that that there was a better way to handle the rising costs of medical care without raising the premiums of everyone, stifling small businesses, taxing the country more and not securing our borders where most of our uninsured medical costs arise.

You're right, it is just like saying we've all bought bombs and fighter jets.

I don't expect to get taxed, in fact as a small business owner I expect to get a tax credit.

 

[g5000]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

Congress already did that. The Second Militia Act of 1792.

 

[g5000]

Ah. I see NYcarbineer already pointed out the Militia Acts of 1792.

So...yeah. Congress made every able-bodied adult male buy a gun.

Awesome!

 

[Amelia]

go ahead and do it.

if the people want it

LOL - because what the people want is the standard?

If that's the case then Obamacare would not have passed. By the time the Democrats were near the end of creating their monster, the nation was so opposed to what was happening that

(A) Obama had to lie about the mandate and say it wasn't a tax
(B) Liberal Massachusetts voted for a Republican to fill the Kennedy seat to try to slam the brakes on the travesty
(C) As a result of the Massachusetts vote the Congress had to take extraordinary parliamentary measures to push the legislation through



Why do you defend something which wouldn't have been passed without lie after lie? I thought the truth mattered to you.

I guess I'm confusing you with someone else.

 

[P@triot]

And you sound like a BIGGER DICK and a DUMBER PEA-BRAIN! You cited several examples of institutions that are NOT run by the federal government - so that doesn't apply. When I point that out, suddenly I'm the "dick"? You're an idiot, don't blame me for that.

Furthermore, the ONE single freaking institution you did point out that is a federal institution (military) is the #1 responsibility of the federal government as cited by the Constitution. So that also doesn't apply (because if it's the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government, it's legal and proper and it really doesn't matter if you "don't like it").

So your entire post was irrelevant and wrong, and you're pissed at me for pointing out your ignorance. Sorry dude if I don't support your misinformation posted for others to read.

Talking to me has provided you with more accurate information that you've apparently acquired in your whole damn miserable life. But, apparently like liberals, you prefer to be misinformed becase ignorance is bliss.

Rottweiler – I completely understand the difference between federal and state entities, and my post – bringing up things that we are forced to pay for by various forms of government – was one that was simply pointing out a concept. You’re being petty/nitpicky, which (to me) is a sign that you’re incapable of debating topics of true substance. How about you start by responding to post #69 (it was directed straight at you)? Why'd you skip over that one?

Also, I’d like to let you know that you sound like a sad and angry person, Rott.

Because all 3 "concepts" you pointed out don't apply. 2 of them are local taxes, so the concept is irrelevant to the federal Obamacare tax, and the other one is the Constitutional responsibility of government - so it also doesn't apply. It would be like me pointing to a 747 as "concept" for discussions about horses having the ability to fly or not.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

No - it doesn't make any sense. That's a completely bullshit answer - you're literally makingi up that "people don't know the cost, etc.". I could say the exact same thing about guns - people don't know the models, the cost, the features (and it would actually be more true than healthcare for the idiot liberals), but I realize what an assinine excuse that is....

No, it's not a bullshit answer. Anyone who has a background in economics will know that Healthcare is a completely unique sector of our economy.

With regards to "people don't know the costs" I'm obviously referring to the element of insurance. In the healthcare world, insurance covers great portions of the cost of doctor appointments, emergency room visits, and surgeries (to name a few). People rarely pay the full price of their healthcare service, and therefore generally don't have a good grasp at evaluating the true monetary cost of what they are receiving. One doctor could charge $250 and the other $500 but it won't really matter to the consumer because he/she only has to cover the $15 copay.

So Rottweiler, do you have "gun insurance" that you pay a monthly premium on, that will cover 90% of your next rifle?


Finally, with regards to quality, I'm talking largely about the fact that the doctor prescribes things to you and tells you what to buy (rather than you deciding for yourself). If the doctor tells you to take "Medication A" because he/she thinks you have a certain type of bacterial infection, (generally speaking) you'll take it with no questions asked. The doctor and the insurance company will judge the quality of procedures, medicines, and services for you, whereas when you're buying a gun you are judging quality for yourself.

That is unless..

Do you have a gun insurance company that will choose what guns and ammunition are best for you?




.

Once again, you make no sense. Everything is a "unique" part of the economy. There is only one airline industry in the economy, there is only one gun manufacturing industry in the economy, there is only one investment industry in the economy. All of course have competition, just like the hospitals and health insurance do, but they are all "unique" as industries to the economy.

You're basically just trying to justify that which cannot be justified. This is unconstitutional - period. The US government does not have the authority to force citizens to purchase anything.

What's really funny is that during the Democratic debates in '08, Obama slammed Hillary Clinton's mandate policy, claiming that (and I quote here), "trying to fix healthcare by mandating everyone must by insurance is like trying to fix homelessness by mandating everyone buy a home".

So even Obama himself knows this is bullshit of the highest level. He knows it won't work, just like it hasn't in Cuba, England, or Canada where every citizen covered has created healthcare that is a SPECTACULAR failure. It's just a fact. Canadians come to America for life saving surgery because there a waiting list of many months to years. Same with England. And Cuba, well, does it really require any comment?

 

[KevinWestern]

Once again, you make no sense. Everything is a "unique" part of the economy. There is only one airline industry in the economy, there is only one gun manufacturing industry in the economy, there is only one investment industry in the economy. All of course have competition, just like the hospitals and health insurance do, but they are all "unique" as industries to the economy.

You're basically just trying to justify that which cannot be justified. This is unconstitutional - period. The US government does not have the authority to force citizens to purchase anything.

What's really funny is that during the Democratic debates in '08, Obama slammed Hillary Clinton's mandate policy, claiming that (and I quote here), "trying to fix healthcare by mandating everyone must by insurance is like trying to fix homelessness by mandating everyone buy a home".

So even Obama himself knows this is bullshit of the highest level. He knows it won't work, just like it hasn't in Cuba, England, or Canada where every citizen covered has created healthcare that is a SPECTACULAR failure. It's just a fact. Canadians come to America for life saving surgery because there a waiting list of many months to years. Same with England. And Cuba, well, does it really require any comment?

Rott- Let me explain this very clearly. The healthcare industry is unique because of the role that insurance plays within it. When it comes to healthcare, virtually all costs are distorted from the consumer perspective.

Let's say it one more time very slowly: Healthcare is unique because of the element of I..N..S..U..R..A..N..C..E.

Sure, we have home insurance and car insurance but that is fundamentally different in that it that really only covers catastrophes. In healthcare, even the routine stuff is covered by insurance; this includes the physicals, the preventative tests, the inhalers, ect, ect. Does your car insurance cover oil changes or brake pad replacements? Will your home insurance cover a new marble counter-top because you're tired of the one you have currently?

Also, me must take into account the fact that if someone who is uninsured goes to the ER with a gunshot wound, he/she will still get treated and someone will have to pay for those costs. When you crash your car and can't afford to fix it because you don't have insurance, will the the auto shop foot the bill for you upfront?

So..

Before you blabber off and say that "I make absolutely no sense", why not provide me a few examples of industries where consumers (a) take out insurance, and (b) use that insurance to cover most or all of the costs associated with anything related to that industry. I'm all ears...

And by the way, I'm not justifying the mandate or making a case for Obamacare, so you can save the Constitutional rant (how many times do I have to go over this? Ten? Fifteen?). I'm simply explaining to you why the Healthcare industry is unique.

.


.

 

[Avatar4321]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

This wins "The Stupid Thread of Month" and came in second for "Retarded thought of the Month." Congrats.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Law

Not my fault if you can't deal with the reality of the Court decision. The Federal Government can now mandate that we buy anything they choose and tax us if we fail to comply with their mandate. That's the law.

The fact that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than deal with the reality of the new law tells me you are unable to do so.

 

[Avatar4321]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

Congress already did that. The Second Militia Act of 1792.

There is a difference between having members of the local militias buying guns and the population at large.